Income Inequality is Good for the Economy

A former partner of Mitt Romney at Bain makes the case for inequality:

Ever since the financial crisis started, we’ve heard plenty from the 1 percent. We’ve heard them giving defensive testimony in Congressional hearings or issuing anodyne statements flanked by lawyers and image consultants. They typically repeat platitudes about investment, risk-taking and job creation with the veiled contempt that the nation doesn’t understand their contribution. You get the sense that they’re afraid to say what they really believe. What do the superrich say when the cameras aren’t there?

With that in mind, I recently met Edward Conard on 57th Street and Madison Avenue, just outside his office at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he helped build into a multibillion-dollar business by buying, fixing up and selling off companies at a profit. Conard, who retired a few years ago at 51, is not merely a member of the 1 percent. He’s a member of the 0.1 percent. His wealth is most likely in the hundreds of millions; he lives in an Upper East Side town house just off Fifth Avenue; and he is one of the largest donors to his old boss and friend, Mitt Romney.

Unlike his former colleagues, Conard wants to have an open conversation about wealth. He has spent the last four years writing a book that he hopes will forever change the way we view the superrich’s role in our society. “Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,” to be published in hardcover next month by Portfolio, aggressively argues that the enormous and growing income inequality in the United States is not a sign that the system is rigged. On the contrary, Conard writes, it is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off. This could be the most hated book of the year.

Conard understands that many believe that the U.S. economy currently serves the rich at the expense of everyone else. He contends that this is largely because most Americans don’t know how the economy really works — that the superrich spend only a small portion of their wealth on personal comforts; most of their money is invested in productive businesses that make life better for everyone. “Most citizens are consumers, not investors,” he told me during one of our long, occasionally contentious conversations. “They don’t recognize the benefits to consumers that come from investment.”

The evidence that a significant percentage of the American ultra-wealthy are sociopaths, and stupid ones, too, mounts daily. It's not enough to have everything for this guy, he wants people to say, "I wouldn't have anything without you, you big wonderful lug."
I read somewhere else today that there's been an increase in rich U.S. citizens attempting to change their citizenship to Swiss because of tax evasion enforcement. A positive development for the economy at last.

The evidence that a significant percentage of the American ultra-wealthy are sociopaths, and stupid ones, too, mounts daily. It's not enough to have everything for this guy, he wants people to say, "I wouldn't have anything without you, you big wonderful lug."

Click to expand...

Believing what's best for you is best for everyone isn't sociopathic. It's Human Nature 101.

The evidence that a significant percentage of the American ultra-wealthy are sociopaths, and stupid ones, too, mounts daily. It's not enough to have everything for this guy, he wants people to say, "I wouldn't have anything without you, you big wonderful lug."

The evidence that a significant percentage of the American ultra-wealthy are sociopaths, and stupid ones, too, mounts daily. It's not enough to have everything for this guy, he wants people to say, "I wouldn't have anything without you, you big wonderful lug."

Click to expand...

Believing what's best for you is best for everyone isn't sociopathic.

Click to expand...

Wanting to be thanked and praised for your own self-interest is.

Click to expand...

I'll remember that during the next thread about how underappreciated journalists are.

There was a University of Chicago professor a few months ago who made some waves on the Interwebs when he said in an interview that wide income inequality was good for society because it "incentivized" the poor to catch up.